Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
"Azzy77":htbqg8wo wrote:You guys realise that the 4 game suspension is an urban myth?
There was a fight in NZIHL this year were neither player received a suspension.
[/quote:htbqg8wo]I understand there was a technicality which led to a disciplinary hearing not going ahead. But if it was a fight, and then it was a game misconduct, I doubt they go to disciplinary hearings. Some leagues only send Match penalties to a hearing, Game Misconduct you just miss a game if it happens near the end of the game. DIHA any game misconduct or match penalty goes to a hearing, helps iron out inequities that happen on the ice (like a referee giving a game misconduct for eye gouging, which is certainly a match penalty).
There’s no standards that I’m aware of in the NZIHL for bans for various activities. The only standards I’ve ever seen in NZ ice hockey is AIHA. They have a disciplinary schedule on their web site under admin which includes standard bans for various things.
The NZIHL hasn’t got its post-match discipline working very smoothly. There was a player who played a period against the Thunder, despite the fact that he should have been serving a game ban. No official notice had been given so the team claimed not to know. So he missed the rest of that game, and the goal he assisted on in the first period was wiped (yes that is messy).
"thirteen":3gu8y11m wrote:back to kyles point, ive tried to get involved with the southern league before, when they expressly asked for players to come and give their inputs. do you know what happened? i just got ignored. what else can i do?
[/quote:3gu8y11m]I can counter that by saying, I’m a player of ice hockey, and I get a bunch of stuff that I want to happen through the DIHA, SIHL etc. Not everything, but that’s fair enough.
"thirteen":drr179x0 wrote:the only problem is, is that the people who enjoy the feminising of brutal male sport, are the one in charge, and they impose their ideals on a community unwanting of them. the rules in sports are very seldom democratically decided, with respect to all stake holders in the sport.
[/quote:drr179x0]I don’t believe this is the case, but if it is, the answer surely is for the players to get more involved in making these decisions.
"Azzy77":10blethm wrote:When they “cleaned up” rugby they destroyed it. When Rugby went professional it died.
The biggest area in Rugby they cleaned up was no rucking.
[/quote:10blethm]Actually the removal of rucking from the game and professionalism aren’t tied together at all. Rugby went professional in 1995, rucking still existed into this millenium. Here’s SST writer Richard Boock’s column on rucking (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opin … -off-thugs):
[quote:10blethm]Rucking, long celebrated as the traditional New Zealand method for winning possession at the breakdown, has also doubled as the main theatre of operations for those oafs attracted to the game by the promise of barely-contained violence. High profile victims of the approach include Welshman JPR Williams, opened up by All Black studs at Bridgend in 1978, and Englishman Phil de Glanville, sliced apart by New Zealand forwards in 1993.
As an excuse for trampling over anyone in the vicinity of the tackled ball area with no regard for safety, rucking was one of the rugby thug’s most dependable alibis. I can still remember, in the early 1990s, the sight of Otago flanker Phil Young following a provincial match against Waikato in Hamilton; the loosie virtually unrecognisable after a deranged Mooloo forward had tap-danced on his face. The scariest part? It wasn’t an uncommon occurrence.
People can dream all they like about an imaginary time when rugby players used to ruck properly. Truth is, the further back you look, the worse the brutality. If it wasn’t for the advent of television and video scrutiny, the game would still be a favourite haunt for the unhinged and the reprobate. And it’s not as if rucking’s unheard of anymore. Fullback Luke Wilson needed 130 stitches and 4 1/2 hours of surgery last week after being “rucked” in a South Otago club game.
That the rest of the rugby world is now unanimously opposed to the practice (in anything but the most sanitised form) shouldn’t come as a big surprise to anyone, least of all Kiwis. New Zealand only has itself to blame for the perception that rucking is nothing but a euphemism for malicious trampling, stamping and kicking. To gasp aloud now about a claimed misconception is to ignore the manner in which it has been abused by so many of our countrymen.[/quote:10blethm]
Comparisons between rucking in rugby and fighting in hockey are quite apt actually. You get the same justification for it (doesn’t hurt anyone), which is clearly true for neither rugby not fighting in hockey. In rugby they changed the rules to penalise players holding onto the ball rather than having the opposing team being allowed to ruck them. The potential is there for the same thing in ice hockey. If you look at NHL fights, they’re not like the fights that we have here, where people get frustrated and explode, they’re normally conscious decisions by teams to fight. Changing the rules could squish that if the league wanted to.
"Hockey_Goon":1cznwkic wrote:Yes VPatrol i completely agree with you. I understand if you are not a fighter and that’s OK but im saying that im sick of Kyle trying to get rid of it in NZ Hockey and he must reliazie the importance of it in certain situations. Like you say i to would be happy to 60 minutes of clean hard fought Hockey with no fighting.
[/quote:1cznwkic]I’m not getting rid of anything. If people fight then they’ll get game misconducts as the rules say. I’m just predicting that this is going to fade out of hockey over the next few decades, and that’s something I’m entirely happy with.
"rookie#19":2dfhta24 wrote:The first game this DIHL season had some rough stuff, we got smoked something like 7-0. Last game of the season we had heaps of rough stuff, and got beaten 8-3. The games in the middle were great games, everyone played hard and wanted to play good hockey so no one even worried about throwing punches around. The frustrating part is the potential for great hockey from our team, many people have mentioned this. Guess we will see what happens next week in finals, one less fight and one more win would be nice.
[/quote:2dfhta24]Good call Stefan. U19 hockey is our weakest area, not because we don’t have some talented players, but we don’t have anywhere for them to play. It will probably be the thing that occupies the DIHA’s time most next year – we’re hopefully going to be creating a new competition for them to play in.
We’d like that to involve more hockey, less other stuff.
"vpatrol":2vzspxm1 wrote:no but the game is for the players. Minor hockey is controlled by the parents/admins etc. Until you get a consensus of the adult players saying we want fighting out of the game, how can you impose that on them? “We know you are adults and everything and you don’t mind fighting in hockey but we have decided that you can’t make that decision for yourselves and to be honest it’s easier for us to tell you what to do instead of educating kids to respect others and play fair”
[/quote:2vzspxm1]This situation isn’t different from rugby at all.
And the reality is, it’s one sport. Youth players emulate senior players – particularly the top level ones. As this topic demonstrates, ‘fighting code’ and this element of hockey culture doesn’t start at senior hockey, youth players pick it up as teenagers, sometimes younger.
Rugby made a decision that the whole sport had to be cleaned up, because telling people to not to do it at one age, but then telling the top level guys it’s OK doesn’t work. Again, no sport works that way.
"Hockey_Goon":ak6t1djp wrote:Be honest with the kids, Hockey is violent your never going to change that. Secondly enforcers understand there roles there job isn’t to bully other players theres an unspoken code in hockey.
If Hockey devolps in NZ fighting will become an absolute nessictiy to stop cheap shots, you can go on about that culture bullshit because when the games going down emotion takes over.
[/quote:ak6t1djp]Doesn’t matter how many times people say “you can’t change it”, there’s demonstrable evidence that you can change it. Lots of sports have changed or removed the role of fighting in their sport, hockey just hasn’t had the will to do it yet. The Flyers used to regularly head into the crowd for a brawl, doesn’t happen any more, not part of the hockey culture. The same thing could be done with fighting on the ice, if the sport committed to it. Once a few NHL players started missing games for fighting, and their clubs got fined, there’d be a lot less fights and they’d be a lot less willing to start them.
"Hockey_Goon":ak6t1djp wrote:I mean serious players. Not socail players because obvisouly fighting is not needed in low levels.
[/quote:ak6t1djp]This a couple of pages into a thread which is now dominated by discussion of fighting that took place in a social league, which people have justified using the same justification that is used at all levels of hockey.
"Hockey_Goon":ak6t1djp wrote:I am telling you the Oilers would have never won the Cup all those years with out Dave Semenko (thanks Vpatrol) and Marty Mcsorley. Maybe Gretzky would have been ok for the first half of the season but come playoff time somone would take him out people arnt just going to play fair the desire to win takes over. Look at what happened to Kharlomov during the summit series. Officals can’t save everything.
[/quote:ak6t1djp]Again, no other sport adopts this code of players taking matters into their own hands if they feel the referee isn’t doing the right job. The last guy that Ritchie McCaw thumped on the rugby field was that nutty South African spectator who attacked the referee. Yet in 1956 the All Blacks brought a prop into the test series specifically to ‘deal to’ the opposing south african props. He even switched sides of the scrum at half time because he’d cowed one guy sufficiently and he wanted to go to work on the other guy who was still causing problems.
Rugby decided to deal to this culture, and it’s now largely disappeared. There’s nothing about ice hockey that prevents this, the sport just lacks the will at present. It will get there.
"Hockey_Goon":2sb9rk6h wrote:Kyle how do you know Fighting wouldn’t work as a marketing tool?
Im sure if fighting was allowed Hockey in New Zealand would get a much greater fanbase. Lets face it every one loves fighting there are those who love to watch it for the thrill of it and others want to see it just so they can protest against it.
And from a players stand point they are all going to want fighting in the game stars players have protection from cheapshots and the enforcers take pride in there job to protect them.
[/quote:2sb9rk6h]Because I spend a lot of time trying to encourage people to play hockey, and ‘isn’t it really violent, don’t they have lots of fighting?’ is the most common response. It’s the perception that causes the most problems with growing our sport.
If there was more fighting in the sport, I’m sure there would be a bunch of members of the public that would love it and turn up. You’d rule out getting on TV more however, and you’d turn away a whole heap of potential fans. It’s no coincidence that the squashing of fighting in rugby was done at the same time as the switch to professionalism, when rugby needed to attract a broader audience and pull in sponsors and get on TV more.
As for players, I can think of a bunch of them who don’t like fighting. And I can’t see those chats to parents of young potential players going well when it starts off with “hey, so is your kid any good in a fight?”
I’m sure Wayne would still have been a great player without an enforcer protecting him, the reason he had one is because of (again) hockey culture. Teams go after the opposition’s best player and try and take them out of the game by breaking the rules, so teams put someone else on the ice to cancel out the illegal play. None of this is necessary, Gretzky would still be a great player without fighting going on around him.
If you like the fighting that took place during that era, fine, up to you. But don’t pretend that it was necessary for the Oilers Stanley Cup reign and great hockey players.
"vpatrol":2rffrazw wrote:ex. rookie takes run at star player, rookie serves 2 minutes, enforcer finds rookie next shift, rookie is leaking blood from numerous orifices, rookie no longer takes liberty with star player)
[/quote:2rffrazw]You can do better than that Vince. Violence in hockey is a cultural component of the sport. There’s nothing inherent in ice hockey which requires violence. You’re using the same argument that was used in rugby 20 years ago when it started to stamp the violence out of the game. Rugby is now a lot less violent than it was when I was young.
Violence appears in hockey for a number of reasons. In the NHL it’s somewhat condoned as a marketing tool, which works well there (violence in hockey doesn’t work well as a marketing tool here). It’s accepted by a decent number of players, coaches, administrators, and officials as being ‘part of the game’. That’s a cultural element that is carried on by the myth of ‘a fight sorting out something’.
The idea that Chris or Mike or whoever else did whatever last night resolving anything clearly isn’t true. The people they were opposed to will play the same next time they step on the ice at this level as they did last night (whether that’s dirty or not). If Hockey_Goon is correct and Rhys stepped up to protect a member of his team, do we think he won’t do that again? No of course he will, Rhys believes in that part of hockey culture.
In rugby league you see lots of violence at one level (State of Origin), much less at another level (NRL, test matches). Again, it’s cultural, there’s an expectation and hype of violence around State of Origin that isn’t around other parts of rugby league.
Violence will lessen in hockey when all aspects of the sport – players, coaches, officials, and administrators decide to make it so. Once administrators across the whole sport make a decision to get rid of it, and direct officials and coaches to do so without exception, it will fade away until it’s relatively rare. Until then it’s a point of conflict as to whether it should be in the sport.
If you want to argue for fighting because you think people should be able to fight as part of hockey, go ahead. If you enjoy that, up to you. If you think it markets the sport, OK, there’s some places in the world where it does. But an argument about it being an essential part of the game for reasons of sorting out other players is deeply flawed.
"vpatrol":11xqs72d wrote:slash a guy in the face, you get a warning if its accidental and probably some choice language. Slash a guy in the face as part of continued dirty play, prepare to fight. The best refs in the world can’t stop that happening nor should they. No idea what happened but if a “young guy” does something stupid, history supports the “old guy” preventing him from doing it again. That’s proper hockey.
[/quote:11xqs72d]Actually, I think all the people sent off were relatively young, as in under 25.
I wasn’t at the game and haven’t seen the scoresheet, but I understand that there were more people sent off from the senior team than the junior team, so I don’t think it’s an old person teaching a young person a lesson thing. The most serious one was certainly someone from the Jets, not the FYC.
I’ve done some editing and some changes based on a couple of things suggested here and a redo that Vince sent me. New drafts:
Code of Conduct ? Youth Players and Parents
Youth players are expected to meet the following standards of behaviour:
1. Play hockey for enjoyment above all other things.
2. Learn the rules of ice hockey, submitting to the rulings of officials without argument.
3. Be on time and properly equipped for all practices and games.
4. Aim for improvement in all aspects of their game.
5. Support their team and team members on and off the ice.
6. Respect opponents through good sportsmanship.
7. Respect coaches and listen to and follow their instructions.
8. Respect the rules of all sporting and other facilities.
9. Encourage others to play ice hockey through modeling and promotion of the sport.Players can have the following expectations:
1. Have fun on and off the ice.
2. Be able to ask questions and learn more about the game of ice hockey.
3. Have qualified coaching and develop as a player.Parents are expected to meet the following standards of behaviour:
1. Support players in their ice hockey, not forcing them to play, having unrealistic expectations of them, or condemning them for making mistakes.
2. Respect officials and submit to their rulings without argument. Encourage players to follow the rules and to resolve conflicts without resorting to hostility, abuse, or violence.
3. Communicate with team coaches and managers about a player’s availability and health.
4. Encourage and reward sportsmanship on the ice.
5. Provide a good example for fellow parents and players in their behaviour.
6. Respect coaches/managers and support their work. A parent’s primary job at games is to support their child and their team, parental help will only be allowed if it is asked for.Parents can have the following expectations:
1. Players to participate in a safe, supportive environment.
2. Players to have an opportunity to improve their ice hockey and play at a competitive level.
3. Be able to ask questions of the Association and its coaches and officials at an appropriate time and place.The Dunedin Ice Hockey Association has a zero tolerance policy towards:
1. Verbal abuse, physical abuse, fighting, or any other unsportsmanlike behaviour
2. ‘Hazing’ or other team or rookie initiation rituals.
3. Performance enhancing or illegal drug use.
4. Alcohol consumption by members under the age of eighteen.Any player, parent, coach or official who engages in this behaviour faces disciplinary consequences.
Code of Conduct ? Senior Players
Senior players are expected to meet the following standards of behaviour:
1. Play hockey for enjoyment above all other things.
2. Communicate with team coaches and managers about their availability and health.
3. Learn the rules of ice hockey, submitting to the rulings of officials without argument.
4. Be on time and properly equipped for all practices and games.
5. Aim for improvement in all aspects of their game.
6. Support their team and team members on and off the ice.
7. Respect opponents through good sportsmanship.
8. Respect coaches and listen to and follow their instructions.
9. Respect the rules of all sporting and other facilities.
10. Encourage others to play ice hockey through modeling and promotion of the sport.Players can have the following expectations:
1. Have fun on and off the ice.
2. Play in a safe, supportive environment.
3. Have qualified coaching and develop as a player.
4. Play the game at a competitive level.
5. Be able to ask questions and learn more about the game of ice hockey.
6. Be able to ask questions of the Association and its coaches and officials at an appropriate time and place.The Dunedin Ice Hockey Association has a zero tolerance policy towards:
1. Verbal abuse, physical abuse, fighting, or any other unsportsmanlike behaviour
2. ‘Hazing’ or other team or rookie initiation rituals.
3. Performance enhancing or illegal drug use.
4. Alcohol consumption by senior members immediately before or during on-ice activities.Any player, parent, coach or official who engages in this behaviour faces disciplinary consequences.
"Ryan":3p376yjh wrote:Don’t you want to win for enjoyment? In which case the current comment about playing for the enjoyment of the game might cover that already.
[/quote:3p376yjh]That’s (part of) the reason why its worded the way it is, rather than ‘have fun’, which would feel condescending to me. Sometimes hockey isn’t fun, though most often it is. Some people enjoy getting their butts kicked every game (I know Ryan has in the past), other people find that really despressing.
(Yeah I meant Thunder when I said ‘your team’, not DIHL).
I don’t object to having something about winning in there, if someone can suggest a wording.
Week 4 dihl stats and report here:
